Infrastructure Development

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/74233/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The need for more affordable housing close to public transport and services is acute in Melbourne.
Inner Melbourne has experienced a 74 percent increase in rough sleeping <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/shocking-record-numbers-of-homeless-people-sleeping-on-melbournes-streets-20160609-gpf1wk">in </a>the past two years. This is perhaps the most visible outcome of the lack of affordable housing options. Only 1 percent of advertised rental properties in the metropolitan area are affordable for households reliant on government assistance.
Buying or renting in the well-serviced inner and middle suburbs is increasingly out of reach for households on low and moderate incomes. A month ago, one of us wrote an article in The Conversation bemoaning the lack of government leadership on this issue. In the 15 months since its election, the Victorian government had not delivered promised revisions to the Plan Melbourne metropolitan strategy or an affordable housing strategy.
What a difference a month makes. It is almost as if some government leaders read the article. Every week (or to be more precise, weekend) since then has delivered a major policy announcement.
Now that Plan Melbourne and Homes For Victorians have been delivered, it is only fair that we provide a preliminary evaluation of how well these strategies meet the housing needs of Victorians on moderate, low and very low incomes.
These documents remain vague about the definition of “affordable housing”. They also do not designate various income groups. We have taken the liberty of defining these groups based on median income brackets.
Moderate-income households
We define moderate income as 80-120% of area median income – about A$68,500-$102,500 a year. In this group, first home buyers appear to be the biggest winners in Plan Melbourne and Homes For Victorians.
The Victorian government will waive stamp duty for first home buyers on homes worth up to $600,000 and taper stamp duty concessions on homes above that price. This is set to cost the government $851 million over four years and save the average buyer $8,000.
However, if previous first home buyer incentives have taught us anything, this is likely to inflate the cost of cheaper dwellings without delivering affordability benefits.
The government is also offering a shared equity program. This allows first home buyers to co-purchase their home with the government. The initiative is intended to support households that qualify for a bank loan but need help saving a deposit. Western Australia has a similar program, which has helped more than 1,500 households buy homes to date.
Low-income households
This group earns 50 percent-80 prcent of area median income, in the range of $42,500-$68,500 a year.
As exciting as the above options are for some first home buyers, they are out of reach for low-income households that earn between $800 and $1,300 per week. These households are unlikely to qualify for social housing but struggle to afford market rent and purchase prices.
This group, which includes many service and trades workers and their families, need a steady stream of new, appropriately sized and affordable market rental options. However, neither the Housing for Victorians nor Plan Melbourne talks specifically about a new scheme to replace the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which the current federal government abandoned in 2013.
It is absolutely true, as the affordable housing strategy states, that federal policies like capital gains tax exemptions and negative gearing favour investors over first-time and other resident homebuyers. However, state government policies can have an impact on scaling up a rental housing market.
In other cities with similar housing affordability crises, such as Vancouver, New York and London, a combination of expedited approvals, development levy abatements, inclusionary zoning and other mechanisms have helped develop new below-market rental units. Located near public transport and services, these are usually provided at particular price points and kept affordable in perpetuity.
Very-low-income households
These households have income of less than 50 percent of the area median, or under $42,500. They are likely to be the primary beneficiaries of significant new social housing funding and development.
The Victorian government has set up a $1 billion fund to support new social housing. The government will work with community housing providers to deliver social housing through new construction and rental subsidies. This is estimated to deliver up to 2,200 new housing units over the next five years.
This funding injection is badly needed: Victoria has the lowest proportion of social housing stock in Australia.
The state government is also increasing funding, or providing new funding, for a Family Violence Housing Blitz, support for transitions out of homelessness, and rooming house renovation.
A new $1 billion loan guarantee fund for social housing providers will be linked to a shared social housing rent registry. This will make life a little easier for the 33,000 households on the public housing waiting list. They currently have to separately register with up to a dozen other community housing providers.
Plan Melbourne has identified a policy direction to use surplus government land to develop social and affordable housing. Launch Housing and VicRoad’s proposal for Ballarat Road in Maribyrnong offer an example of how these partnerships might work. Plan Melbourne also focuses on increasing the supply of social housing through regeneration and intensification of existing public housing sites.
However, the strategy does not recommend a level of social housing as a proportion of total existing and new housing stock. To provide for all households now eligible for social housing, Victoria would require 76,000 more social housing units. By 2051, that figure is projected to increase to 140,000
Furthermore, Plan Melbourne projects a need for 1.6 million new homes in the next 30 years. That’s over 50,000 new homes a year. Of these, 5,000 would be required to meet the needs of low-income seniors, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, female-headed households escaping family violence, and others who simply cannot compete in the private rental market.
Now to make these plans work
 
 
The Andrews government has new housing and planning strategies, but has more to do to ensure they work. Tracey Nearmy/AAP
Plan Melbourne and Homes For Victorians provide several directions that could benefit all Victorians. Welcome aspects include greater emphasis on public transport networks, greater diversity of housing options, 20-minute neighbourhoods and practical mechanisms to get more housing closer to public transport and services.
The plans also make very encouraging noises about strengthening the role of planning in helping to deliver social and affordable housing. This includes overcoming the legislative and definitional barriers to the effectiveness of mechanisms like density bonuses or inclusionary housing.
The continuing lack of formal definition of affordable housing is a fundamental flaw in Victorian affordable housing policy that remains unsolved by Homes For Victorians and Plan Melbourne.
Plan Melbourne and Homes for Victorians together provide some welcome directions towards more well-located and affordable housing. But the previous Victorian planning strategy, Melbourne 2030, foundered in implementation.
Victoria will have to link infrastructure improvements to specific affordable housing targets in well-serviced areas. And the government should continue its work on value capture and development contributions to nail down implementation of its long-awaited affordable housing strategy.
Katrina Raynor is postdoctoral research fellow, Transforming Housing Project, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katrina-raynor-255374" target="_blank">here</a>.
Carolyn Whitzman is professor of Urban Planning, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carolyn-whitzman-9944" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

What a difference a month makes, but Victoria can still do more to get housing and planning right

<html><body>
Many factors play a part in growth property markets, but the biggest single element is infrastructure.
Good places to invest are places with excellent infrastructure, including the nuts-and-bolts elements such as schools, shops and public transport.
And the markets most likely to grow in future are those where there’s big spending on new infrastructure - with transport facilities the most influential (although medical and educational infrastructure are also big).
Sydney’s recent price boom was created by three key factors - the strongest economy in the nation, pent-up demand after a decade of under-performance, and big, big spending on infrastructure, especially road and rail links.
Sydney’s economy and its property markets turned around when there was a change of state government in 2011.
After more than a decade of stagnation, with little spent on infrastructure, improved governance caused an upturn in the economy and big spending on new projects. Currently there are facilities worth tens of billions of dollars being built, including massive road and rail ventures.
Projects like these create economic activity and jobs, as well as improving accessibility.
One of the factors underpinning the revival in the Tasmanian economy and the rise of the Hobart property market has been a significant rise in spending on infrastructure.
Similar to the NSW experience, the turnaround in Tasmania has evolved from a change in state government, with an emphasis on infrastructure improvements and encouragement of construction projects.
Prices and rents have grown in Hobart on the back of these changes and the Tasmanian capital is expected to be a price growth leader among the capital cities in 2017, boosted by its low prices, tight vacancies and relatively high rental yields.
Against that background it’s good news that road infrastructure, according to a new study, is forecast to be the No.1 growth industry sector in Australia this year.
Research firm IBISWorld sees road infrastructure building as the fastest-growing industry this year, with revenue growth tipped to rise 27.2% to a tick over $20 billion in FY2017 - ahead of the sugar manufacturing and oil/gas extraction sectors.
Several giant transport infrastructure projects are currently driving accelerated expansion in the road &amp; bridge construction industry. “Much of the current robust growth has been due to the early construction phases of the NorthConnex M1 to M2 link and WestConnex projects in Sydney,” it says. “These private-public funded projects are set to dominate the road construction landscape for several years.”
Meanwhile, a report from commercial real estate consultancy Savills says that Australian cities which provide the most efficient transport infrastructure, on top of essential social infrastructure, will place themselves in the best position to deliver sound economic performance.
They will become the preferred home for the best and most skilled workers and the hi-tech industries that employ them over the next decade.
“And those cities will be at the centre of property development and investment opportunities as they grow to accommodate vastly increased populations”, it says.
Savills Australian Head of Research, Tony Crabb, says many academic studies have pointed to the preference among skilled workers for ‘liveability’ over financial rewards including a 2016 Savills UK study What Workers Want, which found workers wanted their life contained within a half-hour radius.
“We expect skilled or knowledge workers to be doubly attracted to places where they can achieve both a high degree of liveability and financial rewards, but transport infrastructure is the critical element with work, rest and play accessible in 30 minutes by car, public transport, walking, or cycling, the key determinant,” he says.
“Major transport infrastructure provides the backbone of investment opportunities and it is generally around such infrastructure that industries agglomerate, but light rail, tram, bus, cycling and street networks are equally important in delivering liveability.”
Other facilities such as medical and educational infrastructure are also vitally important.
Crabb says that while Melbourne and Sydney are likely to attract a growing number of skilled workers with population forecasts of up to 10 million by 2050, two other cities - Adelaide and Perth – were nominated (along with Melbourne) by the London based Economist Intelligence Unit  among the world’s Top 10 most liveable.
Melbourne ranked No.1 on this list ahead of Vienna and Vancouver, with Adelaide No.6 and Perth No.7.
Melbourne and Victoria continue to lead the nation on population growth, with a 2.07% increase in FY2016, ahead of New South Wales with 1.39% and Queensland with 1.35%.
But Melbourne has not delivered house price growth as high as Sydney’s over the past 3-4 years because it has not matched Sydney’s infrastructure spend or its overall economic performance.
Melbourne does, however, have some big-ticket projects in planning, including the Melbourne Metro Rail Project and the North East link road project. Both are expected to cost over $10 billion.
Brisbane has many factors in its favour but spending on infrastructure has largely ground to a halt and economic performance has been lukewarm.
Part of the problem is a state government suffering from paralysis by analysis. It was reported recently that the Queensland Government has initiated 120 reviews and inquiries since winning office in January 2015, with the under Anna Palaszczuk dubbed the “do-nothing Premier”.
What is starkly absent is clear decision-making and, in particular, much-needed spending on infrastructure.
This is hope that this will change. Brisbane is awaiting a start on eight significant projects, which entail investment totalling over $12 billion. They include inner-city rail projects, highway upgrades, big spending at Brisbane Airport and major tourism-focused inner-city developments such as the $3 billion Queens Wharf Casino and the $800 million Brisbane Quarter project.
 Terry Ryder is the founder of <a href="https://www.hotspotting.com.au/" target="_blank">hotspotting.com.au</a>. You can <a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank">email him</a> or follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter.</a>
</body></html>

terryryder-YECXbqmri2

The three key factors behind Sydney's price boom

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
When we think about infrastructure it’s most often about bridges or roads – or, as in this week’s federal government AU$1.9 billion <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/government-response-2016-national-research-infrastructure-roadmap" target="_blank">National Research Infrastructure announcement</a>, big science projects. These are large assets that can be seen and applied in a tangible way.
It’s not hard to get excited over <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/funded-research-infrastructure-projects" target="_blank">money that will support</a> imaging of the Earth, or the <a href="https://www.ala.org.au/" target="_blank">Atlas of Living Australia</a>.
But important as these projects are, there’s a whole set of infrastructure that rarely gets mentioned or noticed: “soft” infrastructure. These are the services, policies or practices that keep academic research working and, now, open.
Soft infrastructure was not featured in this week’s announcement linked to budget 2018.
Ignored infrastructure
An absence of attention paid to soft infrastructure isn’t just the case in Australia, it’s true globally. This is despite the fact that such infrastructure is core to running the hard infrastructure projects.
For example, the <a href="https://www.openssl.org/" target="_blank">Open SSL software library</a> – which is key to the security of <a href="https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/OpenSSL" target="_blank">most websites</a> – has just a handful of paid individuals who work on it. It’s supported by fragile <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://figshare.com/articles/Software_in_Research_Underappreciated_and_Underrewarded/5518933/1" target="_blank">finances</a>. That’s a pretty frightening thought. (There’s another issue in that researchers doing this work get no academic credit for their efforts, but that’s a topic for another time.)
There are other high profile, globally used, open science infrastructures that also exist hand to mouth. The <a href="https://doaj.org/" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access journals</a> which began at Lund University relies entirely on voluntary donations from supporting members and on occasional sponsorship.
Similarly, <a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php" target="_blank">Sherpa Romeo</a> – the open database of publishers’ policies on copyright and self-archiving – came out of projects at Nottingham and Loughborough Universities in the UK.
In some ways these projects’ high visibility is part of their problem. It’s assumed that they are already funded, so no-one takes responsibility for funding them themselves – the dilemma of collective action.
Supporting open science
Other even more nebulous types of soft infrastructure include the development and oversight of standards that support open science. One example of this is the need to ensure that the metadata (the essential descriptors that tell you for example where a sample that’s collected for research came from and when, or how it relates to a wider research project or publication) are consistent. Without consistency of metadata, searching for research, making it openly available or linking it together is much less efficient, if not impossible.
Of course there are practices in place at individual institutions as well as national organisations. The soon-to-be-combined organisations -Australian National Data Service, the National eResearch Collaboration Tools and Resources project and Research Data Services (<a href="https://www.ands-nectar-rds.org.au/" target="_blank">ANDS-Nectar-RDS</a>) - are supported by national infrastructure funding. These provide support for data-heavy research (including for example the adoption of <a href="https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples" target="_blank">FAIR</a> - Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable standards for data).
But without coherent national funding and coordination, specifically for open science initiatives, we won’t get full value from the physical infrastructure just funded.
What we need
What’s needed now? First, a specific recognition of the need for cash to support this open, soft infrastructure. There are a couple of models for this.
In an article last year it was suggested that libraries (but this could equally be funders – public or philanthropic) should be committing around <a href="http://intheopen.net/2017/09/join-the-movement-the-2-5-commitment/" target="_blank">2.5% of their budget</a> to support open initiatives. There are some international initiatives that are developing specific funding models - <a href="http://scoss.org/" target="_blank">SCOSS</a> for Open Science Services and <a href="https://www.numfocus.org" target="_blank">NumFocus</a> for software.
But funding on its own is not enough: we need a coordinated national approach to open scholarship – making research available for all to access through structures and tools that are themselves open and not proprietary.
Though there are groups that are actively pushing forward initiatives on open scholarship in Australia – such as the <a href="https://aoasg.org.au/" target="_blank">Australasian Open Access Strategy Group</a>, the <a href="http://www.caul.edu.au/" target="_blank">Council of Australian University Librarians</a>, and the <a href="https://acola.org.au/" target="_blank">Learned Academies</a> as well as the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/arc-open-access-policy" target="_blank">ARC</a> and <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/policy/nhmrc-open-access-policy" target="_blank">NHMRC</a> who have open access policies - there is no one organisation with the responsibility to drive change across the sector. The end result is inadequate key infrastructure - for example, for interoperability between research output repositories.
We also need coherent policy. The government recognised a need for national and states policies on open access in its response to the <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/departmental-news/government-response-productivity-commissions-intellectual-property-report" target="_blank">2016 Productivity Commission Inquiry on Intellectual Property</a>, but as yet no policy has appeared.
It’s reasonable to ask whether in the absence of a national body that’s responsible for developing and implementing an overall approach, what the success of a policy on its own would be. Again, there are international models that could be used.
Sweden has a Government Directive on Open Access, and a <a href="http://www.kb.se/dokument/open%20access/OpenAccess_National_Library_Sweden_2017_2019.pdf" target="_blank">National Body for Coordinating Open Access</a> chaired by the Vice-chancellor of Stockholm University.
The Netherlands has a <a href="https://www.neth-er.eu/en/news/Netherlands-Publishes-National-Plan-Open-Science" target="_blank">National Plan for Open Science</a> with wide engagement, supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. In that country, the Secretary of State, Sander Dekker, has been a key champion.
The EU has had a long commitment to open science, underscored recently by the appointment of a high-level envoy with specific responsibility for open science, <a href="https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/open-access-scientific-publications-must-become-reality-2020-robert-jan-smits_en" target="_blank">Robert-Jan Smits</a>.
Private interests might take over
Here’s the bottom line: national coordinated support for the soft infrastructure that supports open science (and thus the big tangible infrastructure projects announced) is not just a “nice to have”.
One way or another, this soft infrastructure will get built and adopted. If it’s not done in the national interest, for-profit companies will step into the vacuum.
We risk replicating the same issues we have now in academic publishing - which is in the hands of multi-billion dollar companies that report to their shareholders, not the public. It’s clear how well that is <a href="https://theconversation.com/publisher-pushback-puts-open-access-in-peril-42050" target="_blank">turning out</a> – publishers and universities globally are in <a href="https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-cancellation-tracking/" target="_blank">stand offs</a> over the cost of publishing services, which continue to rise inexorably, year on year.
Virginia Barbour<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/virginia-barbour-170992" target="_blank"></a>, Director, Australasian Open Access Strategy Group, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847" target="_blank">Queensland University of Technology</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-was-missing-in-australias-1-9-billion-infrastructure-announcement-96723" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Australia's $1.9 billion infrastructure announcement - what was missing?

<html><body>
GUEST Observation
Our governments are <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-just-started-well-need-war-bonds-and-stimulus-on-a-scale-not-seen-in-our-lifetimes-137155" target="_blank">committing taxpayers to further debt</a> as part of a planned recovery from the economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Infrastructure spending is great for economic stimulus, but it has to be the right kind of infrastructure.
These are some of our largest public investments, so we want this public money to work a lot harder to create multiple rather than just singular benefits. As well as quickly providing jobs and the economic benefits of solving the problems of transport or energy supply, stimulus projects need to deliver broad, long-term community value, <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-coronavirus-widens-the-renter-owner-divide-housing-policies-will-have-to-change-135808" target="_blank">reduce inequality</a> and help <a href="https://theconversation.com/sorry-to-disappoint-climate-deniers-but-coronavirus-makes-the-low-carbon-transition-more-urgent-135419" target="_blank">counter climate change</a>.
The focus of <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-flags-company-tax-cuts-ir-reform-as-key-to-covid-19-economic-recovery-20200417-p54kvq" target="_blank">fast-tracked infrastructure spending</a> in the pandemic recovery should be many smaller-scale projects that provide these broader benefits. Hence these projects will provide greater value than the <a href="https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/" target="_blank">transport mega-projects</a> that had already been <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-to-inject-economic-stimulus-by-accelerating-infrastructure-spend-127358" target="_blank">proposed for economic stimulus</a>.
For example, the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-backs-economic-game-changer-high-speed-rail-as-part-of-pandemic-recovery-20200418-p54l24" target="_blank">high-speed rail project</a> Labor has proposed will help decarbonise travel, but it won’t provide enough jobs in the short or medium term. Major road projects will cut commuting time for some drivers, but won’t provide widespread benefits or longer-term employment. New roads also increase emissions and often damage neighbourhoods.
<h2>Good infrastructure delivers broad benefits</h2>
Infrastructure projects are such significant economic engines they can incorporate community improvement without compromising their other outcomes.
The ways in which projects get planned and implemented hold the key. For example, projects should involve local businesses, give hiring preference to long-term unemployed people and use sustainable materials.
Infrastructure planning can integrate multiple functions. For example, water-management infrastructure (for drainage or flooding) can be designed to include open space, tree cover, recreation and cycleways. Streets can be designed as beautiful public spaces that include pedestrians, cyclists and cars, as well as tree canopy and water storage.
Good infrastructure used for employment creation and economic recovery looks like <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/New-Deal" target="_blank">Roosevelt’s New Deal</a> of the 1930s. These programs created a legacy of high-quality public infrastructure across the United States.
A “Green New Deal” approach in Australia could focus on smaller-scale projects, including:
<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/physical-distancing-is-here-for-a-while-over-100-experts-call-for-more-safe-walking-and-cycling-space-137374" target="_blank">infrastructure to promote walking and cycling</a>
</li>
<li>
tree planting to <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-solution-to-cut-extreme-heat-by-up-to-6-degrees-is-in-our-own-backyards-133082" target="_blank">reduce heat and store carbon</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/drought-fire-and-flood-how-outer-urban-areas-can-manage-the-emergency-while-reducing-future-risks-131560" target="_blank">land-management strategies to reduce fire and flood risks</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-the-economy-we-need-green-stimulus-not-fossil-fuel-bailouts-133492" target="_blank">renewable energy infrastructure</a> of all kinds
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-dont-know-what-weve-got-till-its-gone-we-must-reclaim-public-space-lost-to-the-coronavirus-crisis-135817" target="_blank">improvements to public open spaces</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-focus-of-stimulus-plans-has-to-be-construction-that-puts-social-housing-first-136519" target="_blank">retrofitting and enhancing schools</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.greenway.org.au/" target="_blank">multipurpose greenways</a>.
</li>
</ul>
This greenway traverses Sydney’s Inner West municipality.
These types of projects are fast to get going and labour-intensive. They can be implemented in both cities and regional areas. These projects can also build longer-term employment capacity and help with the transition of workers out of fossil fuel industry jobs.
<h2>Bigger isn’t necessarily better</h2>
The largest infrastructure projects, like those being proposed, are the riskiest in terms of <a href="https://theconversation.com/spectacular-cost-blowouts-show-need-to-keep-governments-honest-on-transport-66394" target="_blank">cost blowouts</a> and often deliver limited social and environmental value. In many instances their <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.jstor.org/stable/23607068?seq=1" target="_blank">claimed economic value is also doubtful</a>, as their costs are modelled inaccurately and their benefits and use are often vastly exaggerated.
One cause of cost blowouts is that governments are often reluctant to commit to spending in the early stages of major projects. This means commitments are often <a href="https://theconversation.com/missing-evidence-base-for-big-calls-on-infrastructure-costs-us-all-99080" target="_blank">made before projects are well enough understood</a>. Early spending to explore alternatives, understand impacts and consult widely can often <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2009.00606.x" target="_blank">realise projects more quickly and with more predictable outcomes</a> that better serve the public interest.
The Morrison government is promoting the myth of fast-tracking through the cutting of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-25/coronavirus-eeconomy-reforms-usual-suspects/12182786" target="_blank">red tape</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/23/coalition-is-aiming-to-change-australias-environment-laws-before-review-is-finished" target="_blank">green tape</a>. This is not the key to faster project delivery. We have a decent system of development regulation, which attempts to balance the business interests of developers against the public good. The current crisis has illustrated very clearly the importance of the public values of <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-reminds-us-how-liveable-neighbourhoods-matter-for-our-well-being-135806" target="_blank">liveability</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-major-scorecard-gives-the-health-of-australias-environment-less-than-1-out-of-10-133444" target="_blank">preserving natural resources</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/physical-distancing-is-here-for-a-while-over-100-experts-call-for-more-safe-walking-and-cycling-space-137374" target="_blank">easy access to open space and local centres</a>.
We must hold all our infrastructure projects to higher standards. Robust planning and <a href="https://theconversation.com/cutting-green-tape-may-be-good-politicking-but-its-bad-policy-here-are-5-examples-of-regulation-failure-137164" target="_blank">environmental regulation are crucial</a> to maximise the public benefit of projects. Effective <a href="https://theconversation.com/sidelining-citizens-when-deciding-on-transport-projects-is-asking-for-trouble-92840" target="_blank">community engagement ultimately leads to smoother implementation</a> and better outcomes. Projects that work within planning regulations <a href="https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/urbanism/planning/fast-tracking-development-in-nsw-genuine-reform-or-rent-seeker-give-away/?ct=t%2821+april+2020%29" target="_blank">move more swiftly into implementation</a> than projects that try to bypass them.
In this pandemic crisis we have seen governments move fast and effectively to change policy and implement large-scale programs to benefit the community. The economic rebuilding forced on us by the pandemic is an opportunity to show the same agility to rethink our approach to infrastructure as an engine to uplift our communities and improve life for all citizens.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136838/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-mossop-1040691" target="_blank">Elizabeth Mossop</a>, Dean of Design, Architecture and Building, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936" target="_blank">University of Technology Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-pm-wants-to-fast-track-mega-projects-for-pandemic-recovery-heres-why-thats-a-bad-idea-136838" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The PM wants to fast-track mega-projects for pandemic recovery. Here's why that’s a bad idea

<html><body>
Changes to infrastructure charges by the NSW government are expected to be a hurdle for developers planning new projects because of the uncapped nature of the charges. 
The NSW government's changes to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which allows local councils to levy contributions for public amenities and services because of new development, will now be uncapped.
This would mean that feasibility studies of new projects become too uncertain.
At a meeting in Sydney with Minister for Planning and Housing, Anthony Roberts, Urban Development Institute of Australia's NSW chief executive Steve Mann said the uncapped component had already sent reverberations through the development industry, reported The Australian Financial Review.
Mann said its members, including some major developers, had said they were not likely to make any acquisitions until there was more clarity on the infrastructure charges.
"There is now a serious concern about prospective acquisitions," Mann said.
"The uncapping of Section 94 contributions and making more areas liable to pay state infrastructure contributions without any transparency as to what this cost will be, will directly impact on investment confidence," he said.
He drew similarities with the 2003-04 boom when excessive taxation, of up to 50 percent of the value of a home, led to a supply drought.
The way infrastructure charges will be devised is currently being reviewed by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, the AFR reported.
Mann said he suspected this review could take as long as another 12 months, hurting the delivery of affordable housing in the state.
The NSW government will allow councils to borrow more money for infrastructure spending at a reduced interest rate. It will support up to $500 million in additional borrowing by councils by halving the cost of borrowing for eligible projects.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Uncapped infrastructure charges through Section 94 changes could halt property purchases: UDIA

<html><body>
Large scale infrastructure is inflating activity taking place across the construction industry according to the CoreLogic October Construction Monthly report.  
CoreLogic captured 2,018 development applications and proposals flowing into the construction pipeline across Australia in the month of September.
While 15.4% lower than the number of development applications captured in the previous month, it is above the five year average of 1,775.  
The total value of development applications was $11.2 billion over the month.
Again, this construction value is above the 5 year average of AU$9.3 billion, and was partially driven by the development proposal for a component of the Cross River Rail Line in Brisbane, a project which was first reported by CoreLogic in 2002.  
The Cross River Rail project reached a milestone, following Deputy Premier Jackie Trad's announcement that 5.9 km of tunnelling, four new underground stations and associated work, will be carried out under a pubic private partnership.
(Note: Tenders were called for a $2.5 million tunnel, stations and development package as of the 22nd of September)  
This is the third consecutive month where the value of construction work entering the pipeline has been inflated by a large civil engineering project.
While development applications remain buoyant, CoreLogic captured just 658 projects moving into the construction stages in September. This is far lower than the 5 year average of 1,041 projects per month, and is 27.9% less than moved into construction in the previous month.  
The combined value of projects that moved into construction over September fell by 36.8% on the previous month, to AU$3.5 billion. While all segments outside of commercial building saw a decline, the largest by far was in civil engineering. The value of civil engineering projects commencing was $722 million, down from $1 billion in the previous month.  
While far fewer projects are currently moving into construction, the resilience of the pipeline may see higher levels of construction commencing over the next 6-12 months.
CoreLogic commercial research analyst <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.corelogic.com.au/taxonomy/term/56" target="_blank">Eliza Owen</a>.
</body></html>

pchatterjee-seVgoiQgz5

Queensland state government joins east coast push for infrastructure 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Australian governments have stepped into the market at critical times since the late 19th century to encourage and channel investment in affordable housing. With rising housing stress in Sydney, Melbourne and other areas, the Australian government has now done just that.
On Friday, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar slipped into the National Housing Conference in Sydney to announce a government guarantee on investment in affordable housing.
The announcement went largely unreported, but it was significant. The guarantee is a crucial piece of the affordable housing policy architecture, complementing the “bond aggregator” (or intermediary) mechanism announced in the budget. Treasurer Scott Morrison and Treasury officials have been working on this intermediary, a National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, over the past 18 months.
These combined measures should create an efficient private investment pathway into social and affordable housing for super funds, insurance companies and other entities hungry for low-risk returns.
The government’s Affordable Housing Working Group outlined this approach, drawing on a number of our reports commissioned through the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI). These assembled powerful evidence from a range of countries of the proven record of government-backed financial intermediaries and debt guarantees in affordable housing finance systems.
Judging from responses to the Treasury consultation paper, the guarantee enjoys strong industry and political support.
This development could also catalyse efforts to build a national housing accord backed by industry, civil society and welfare groups to expand affordable housing for the growing number of Australians in need. A campaign in support of this, Everybody’s Home, was foreshadowed at last week’s conference.
New model based on an old principle
A government guarantee to back bonds issued by the new NHFIC marks a welcome return to the Commonwealth’s former role of actively enabling investment in housing for low and moderate-income households. Historically, this involved reshaping circuits of investment to increase supply, improve quality, deliver better-planned suburbs, ensure returning soldiers were housed, broaden access to home ownership and provide security for households not served by a failing market.
The government support for investment will guarantee access to cost-effective private finance for community housing providers. It will be backed by a secure cash flow from rental income supported by Commonwealth Rent Assistance.
Affordable housing includes not only rental housing geared to income but also below-market-rate rental housing and home ownership. This offers a refuge for households unable to afford housing at market rates.
Coupled with dedicated public funding, the guarantee could turn what has been a trickle of short-term and costly bank debt into a hugely increased flow of longer-term and lower-risk investment.
Why invest in social housing?
Our AHURI-funded international research has found that long-term and patient capital makes an ideal partner for affordable rental housing. Instead of capital gains from sales, the steady cash flows from rent revenue offer secure returns. This is what makes it attractive to pension funds.
Combined with public co-investment and not-for-profit management, secure affordable housing outcomes are more assured.
This investment ultimately saves us all money. Too many Australian households are one step from homelessness, which is devastating for any family. The costs of homelessness to the nation are also huge.
But it’s not just a matter of cost. Homelessness is an affront to the Australian values of compassion and a fair go, often underestimated by political leaders.
Lessons from overseas are clear
The government’s re-engagement with efforts to boost affordable rental housing is in tune with moves in other similar countries.
Just last month Canada released its first national housing strategy, highlighting housing as a human right. The aim is to increase the supply of moderate rent and supportive housing by at least 100,000 homes over 11 years. A National Housing Co-investment Fund will provide A$16.5 billion to repair and expand the affordable housing stock.
Also last month, the UK government announced a new round of debt guarantees for “build to rent” development, alongside A$15.7 billion in direct investment and increased borrowing caps for social housing.
It is true the most effective affordable housing policy levers available to governments are land supply and direct public investment. This was the approach taken in early postwar Australia.
But since the 1990s Australian governments have shown no inclination to re-adopt this model. As an alternative, international best practice combines the most cost-effective long-term investment with strategic public investment in well-regulated not-for-profit landlords.
Finland offers an example. In a country one-fifth the size of Australia, 9,000 social housing dwellings are built each year. This is financed by low-cost government-guaranteed loans via a public intermediary, with interest subsidies and conditional grants to not-for-profit providers.
Finland has the lowest rate of homelessness in Europe. Young Finns leave their parental home and become independent earlier than anywhere else in the European Union. It’s a clever housing system, not based on the luck of the market or family fortune.
Now to tackle the public funding gap
Australian governments have long talked the talk of decent homes for all. But they have struggled to align policy on land development, property taxation and social security accordingly. Our political leaders have simply failed to reform our planning and tax systems to favour affordable housing.
The social housing investment guarantee represents an important return by the Commonwealth to leadership in housing policy and investment. It will bring in a large and willing industry super sector, delivering not only returns for policy holders but also real gains for society at large.
However, enabling more cost-effective private finance can narrow but not eliminate the shortfall in funding for social and affordable housing so that the books balance. As the government’s own advisory body made clear, this policy framework can realise its potential only when government commits the funding needed to bridge this gap.
Julie Lawson, Honorary Associate Professor, RMIT University.
Hal Pawson, Associate Director - City Futures - Urban Policy and Strategy, City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW.
Vivienne Milligan, Senior Visiting Fellow - City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-guarantee-opens-investment-highway-to-affordable-housing-88549" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Government guarantee opens investment highway to affordable housing: UNSW

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Infrastructure Australia’s latest infrastructure priority list has been criticised for being “too Sydney-centric” and for giving Melbourne’s East West Link, cancelled in 2014, “high priority” status. The cancelled Roe 8 project in Perth was removed from the list.
So how does a project get onto Infrastructure Australia’s list? This requires submission of a full business case, which then needs to be “positively assessed” to be given priority status.
But our research, yet to be published, has found these business cases leave out highly significant costs. This article looks at three prominent projects – the WestConnex and East West Link motorways in Sydney and Melbourne respectively, and Cross River Rail in Brisbane – to illustrate how business cases submitted to Infrastructure Australia do not follow its requirements in key respects. This casts serious doubt on the business cases used to justify major motorway projects, as well as on how priority projects are selected.
What do business cases assess?
Ensuring business cases are completed before investment decisions are finalised is critical to “good planning”. Part of Infrastructure Australia’s remit is to head off concerns that projects are committed to before business cases are fully evaluated. This can help minimise “optimism bias” and ensure investments deliver community benefit.
But we must also examine what the business case is actually showing us. The main part of each business case is the cost-benefit analysis. This compares the money value of project benefits and project costs. Economically viable projects should have a benefit-to-cost ratio above 1:1.
Infrastructure Australia requires project business cases to consider non-monetised benefits and costs, including community impacts. These benefits and costs are required to be quantified in some other way, or at least described. The basis used to estimate “external costs” must also be provided.
The cost-benefit methodology requires any significant positive or negative impacts on third parties – externalities – to be included. Examples include air quality, carbon emissions, noise, biodiversity and climate adaptation.
Social impacts to be covered include equity or the distribution of benefits (which Infrastructure Australia says need to be identified since cost-benefit analysis does not explicitly take these into account), and affected local communities and other individuals/groups. The non-monetised benefit and cost categories listed as relevant are: social impacts, cultural impacts, visual amenity/landscape, biodiversity and heritage impacts.
In support of monetary estimates, proponents must “describe and provide supporting material that demonstrates how land use, population and employment projections are modelled”.
The guidelines stress that the supporting conditions for expected land use impacts will be in place – for instance, necessary infrastructure investment where densification is assumed. Factors that can hinder the realisation of such benefits (such as local opposition to increasing density) must also be included.
This process would seem to produce a rational prioritisation of national infrastructure projects. The problem is that the business cases submitted to Infrastructure Australia do not follow its requirements.
High-priority projects with problematic business cases
To illustrate this, we analysed the business cases of three projects designated as “high priority” for Commonwealth funding:
<ul>
<li>
East West Link, to which the Commonwealth allocated A$1.5 billion before the new Victorian government cancelled the project
</li>
<li>
WestConnex, which has been allocated A$3.5 billion
</li>
<li>
Cross River Rail, which is yet to receive funding.
</li>
</ul>
A key problem in these business cases is that significant project cost items have not been monetised. These include costs relating to environmental effects such as noise and visual amenity and to other impacts on businesses, households and property values.
For example, none of the three cases includes a valuation of the costs of lost business and disruption to household travel and amenity during construction. (This is a big issue with Sydney’s southeast light rail project.)
There is also no costing of the loss of property values along motorways, especially around exhaust emission vents. The East West Link and Cross River Rail business cases make some allowance for this by including the value of general changes in amenity from noise, urban landscape and visual amenity. None of these are costed in the WestConnex case.
Another significant omission relates to the costing of land use impacts. The WestConnex and East West Link business cases both forecast more, and longer, road trips across the network as a result of the projects.
The WestConnex scheme will increase vehicle kilometres by 600,000 per day and make outer suburbs more accessible relative to the inner city. The potential extra costs from greater sprawl are high, estimated at A$4.99 billion for Sydney over 25 years from 2011 if greenfield housing was 50% of new dwellings rather than 30%.
The opposite is the case for Cross River Rail. Increased higher-density development around rail stations would produce infrastructure savings, but the business case does not give these a value.
Furthermore, the valuation of changes in transport mode resulting from each project is inconsistent.
The Cross River Rail business case includes savings resulting from motorists switching from road to rail after the line is built.
The WestConnex project will have the reverse effect, with 45,000 public transport trips per day being switched to the motorway. But the business case does not put a value on the costs of this. These include bus and train revenue losses, or reduced service frequency and increased waiting time to reduce losses.
Debatable ‘wider economic benefits’
The most contentious business case component is wider economic benefits. These are productivity improvements arising from increased central city job density as a result of the projects improving access.
These benefits needed to be included to lift the East West Link benefit-cost ratio above one. But this is only achieved through sleight of hand – public transport improvements into central Melbourne are included as part of the full project cost. As the public transport component of the business case had low costs compared to its benefits, including these wider economic benefits was enough to push the overall ratio above 1.
Similar benefits are part of the WestConnex cost-benefit analysis. However, these benefits are to be achieved from extra car trips to the centre. This takes no account of the disincentives of road congestion and lack of parking.
Current central Sydney planning controls allow a maximum of one new parking space per 75 square metres of floor area for not-so-tall offices - or one space for about five new workers - and even fewer spaces relative to floor area for higher buildings. This means most increased job density will not come from people driving to work.
By contrast, the wider economic benefits of the Cross River Rail resulting from increased job density in central Brisbane are not valued for inclusion in the cost-benefit analysis.
Rethinking the business case
Our work points to several real concerns:
<ul>
<li>a lack of consistency in what is included in business cases</li>
<li>questions about how cases can be reasonably compared across projects</li>
<li>discretionary inclusion or exclusion of critical items that bias results in favour of projects.</li>
</ul>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94489/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">We need more holistic and integrated analysis of projects. This will take into account not only the “nation-building” aspects – the jobs and growth projects might inspire – but also the disrupting and displacing effects they produce across transport modes, land uses and people’s experiences of the city.
Glen Searle, Honorary Associate Professor in Planning, University of Queensland and, University of Sydney
Crystal Legacy, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-closer-look-at-business-cases-raises-questions-about-priority-national-infrastructure-projects-94489">original article</a>.
</body></html>

‘Priority’ national infrastructure projects have questionable business cases

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The announcement by the NSW Government that four transport corridors are now on exhibition that will underpin Sydney's third city, the Parkland City, is good news.
Infrastructure is the key to accommodating Sydney's growth and the announcement that the NSW Government has identified four transport corridors for the Western City is a good step forward.
The four corridors total 192 kilometres of land reservations that link Western Sydney to the north, south, east and west.
The North South rail corridor will ultimately connect Campbelltown, Western Sydney Airport and the main Western rail line at St Marys. The Outer Sydney Orbital is a vital future ring road and rail freight corridor to Sydney's west.
The Western Sydney Freight Connection will connect to the broader network and the extensive new road connection from Bells Line of Road in the west to the M7 will connect the Blue Mountains more strongly to the road network.
All of these proposed corridors reinforce the City Deal across three levels of government and give momentum to the important development of Western Sydney around the proposed airport.
It is also important to reserve land corridors early in the planning process before prices escalate and this seems to be the case with the four corridors announced.
While these corridors have been announced, the NSW Government is still keen to get community and industry feedback on the alignments. The Urban Taskforce will look closely at the corridors and consultant with our members to provide constructive feedback.
Ministers Pavey and Ayres are demonstrating good leadership in making clear proposals for necessary infrastructure to underpin the future growth of Western Sydney.
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Infrastructure Development

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Infrastructure Development

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News